U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Thanks for that.  I don't disagree with any of it, but I will anyway - but only a bit.

 

In American political analysis, incumbency is regarded as almost a defensive fortress.  That's with good reason - except when it comes to the Presidency.  You've mentioned three incumbents who lost.  But don't forget that Ford was an incumbent in 1976, albeit in less than ideal political circumstances.  So also was LBJ, when he quit because of his poor performance at the start of the 1968 Democratic primaries. So while he didn't lose in the general election, the reality is that he failed in the primaries.  So in my lifetime there have been five incumbent Presidents who have failed to be re-elected. In the same decades, there were four who came through unscathed - Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.  Regardless of the specific reasons for each of the losses, that's a 50% fail rate if you treat Ford's loss as an extension of Nixon's resignation.

 

I did specify "elected incumbent" for that reason. Johnson is an odd case—he won in 1964 in part because of the overwhelming sentiment following JFK's assassination. But he was still a promoted vice president. Ford wasn't even elected as a vice president—he was promoted following the forced resignation of Agnew and then reached the presidency because of Nixon's forced resignation. Before that, you have to go all the way back to Hoover who had the Great Depression to answer for, and none others in the 20th century. In that time, you have the successful candidacies of McKinley, T. Roosevelt (non-elected incumbent), Wilson, Coolidge (non-elected), FDR (x3!), Truman (non-elected and a surprise), and Eisenhower.

 

And again, Carter had the October Surprise, GWHB had Ross Perot, and Trump was Trump.

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Separately, and I've mused about this before, what percentage of American voters are genuinely independent or undecided?  The candidates and their shadow armies will spend astronomical sums on the campaign, whether high-tech or "ground game". All of that is fine and helpful when it comes to getting your own base to show up and vote for you.  But does much (if any) of it help to change anyone's mind?  I doubt that more than 10% of voters are "independent", and it's probably closer to 5 or 7 percent. 

 

Correct, it's all a turnout game. And I think you're right, 5-7% are what you might call true swing voters. For the rest, it's whether they show up or not.  And the money spent on the campaign is both to get your own voters out but it's also to discourage your opponent's base from voting. It's a broken system and I hate that it works this way, but I'm expecting the Democrats to absolutely blanket the October airwaves with footage from J6 and stories of raped kids having to flee their states to get abortions. It's a sick form of politics and it needs reform but until then it's how you win.

 

The expectation is that this year will be lower than average turnout. And again, with Trump gutting the GOP's turnout efforts, well, I expect GOP turnout to be down but then again I never in a million years thought his actual vote total would go *up* from 2016 to 2020, but it did. I ascribe that to their turnout machine which for the moment remains disassmebled but who the hell knows . . .

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Finally, and right out on a tangent, how do you feel about this proposition?  Trump might well be bad for America, and bad for politics, but he's helped with one problem that the journos claim has afflicted American politics since I was a child - getting people to show up to vote, whether for or against him. Was the 2020 turnout a record?  Will 2024 match it?

 

Turnout is an odd thing when it comes to records. It was technically exceptionally high in the 19th century, but then it was only white men allowed to vote, and for a while you had to be landed. After that, you have the on-again, off-again swings of voter suppression and voter facilitation. (The only reason Mississippi is reliably Republican is because of massive voter suppression there. If the Democrats would get the finger out and pass a new, more robust federal voting rights act that restored the work that the SCOTUS gutted, and add felon re-enfranchisement, Mississippi would be reliably blue.) So it wasn't record turnout in terms of who voted vs. who could vote, but it was certainly the most people ever voting.

 

As for whether it's good that people are turnout out in order to try to stop a fascist repeal of American Democracy . . . I can't really say that's a good thing? People voting out of terror isn't healthy in any sense.

[Mikey1874]

Carter only lost because the Republicans paid the Iranians $billions to keep the hostages until after the election. So had the incumbency benefit apart from that unusual situation. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

On 23/04/2024 at 03:22, Watt-Zeefuik said:

To write a longer thing about the state of the election, and why I read the impact of the data very differently from @Ulysses . . .

 

The discussion this week but this thread in general highlight how a lot of y'all clearly think that Donald Trump is the most interesting, most relevant, most important thing about US politics. And to a degree you're not entirely wrong, in that he's an existential threat to American democracy and democracy in the world in general. But in terms of what has salience in the conversations with other US citizens on social media, at the bar, at the school pickup line, and so forth, he's just not that interesting a topic right now. His fans believe in him. His foes are sick of him and scared of what could happen if he comes back. But we're not actually talking about him that much.

 

For context, I live in kind of an odd combo of factors. North Carolina is the state Trump carried most narrowly in 2020, but Durham County (where I live) voted for Biden by about 81-18% (the county just north of us went for Trump). At the same time, my next door neighbor was a big Trump fan. When we were moving back into the neighborhood in 2019 (6 years in Virginia but kept the house here), we told new folks we'd meet "we're the house NEXT to the giant Trump sign." He actually quit talking to me for months because I tried to intercede in a shouting match between him and other neighbors of ours, a gay couple. When Biden was finally declared winner, a lot of us were driving up and down the street honking horns and waving to each other, and my neighbors sat on their porch and grumbled about the rigged election.

 

After J6 that sign went down ("someone stole it!" he said) and never came back up. He's never said it but I know my neighbor's brother is a cop. I think the violence against police on J6 was too much for him. I don't know how he'll vote in November, but even if it's for Trump the gusto has totally vanished. In 2016 and 2020 we'd see MAGA bumper stickers and flags all over the place, even in our "dark blue" city. I still see one occasionally but it's much rarer. His fans might vote for him, possibly in large numbers, but the big, rowdy fun ride vibe that surrounded both of his previous campaigns is totally gone.

 

What are people actually talking about instead of the orange rapey fash? Gaza, housing, immigration, and inflation. The ongoing shitshow of the House GOP. "Is Biden too old" was a big topic two months ago but is gone for now.  Climate change is a big one, but maybe that's just our "blue" city. And, of course, abortion, abortion, abortion.

 

I'm not saying there aren't corners where it's all rah-rah-Trump all the time. I'm saying I used to see more of it, and I hardly ever see it now. Folk on here talk a lot about the "MAGA cult" and it's not entirely wrong but that's like 30-35% of the country—a terrifying amount, to be sure, but not nearly enough to get him the majority. The rest of his support is just upper income people who like that he cut their taxes, or people who are annoyed at immigration or the tent cities that the housing crisis is creating, or people who get worked up about the trans ladies using the bathroom. Some just really don't like Democrats or Joe Biden and so are going to hold their nose and vote for him.

 

And that might be enough for him to win re-election. But as frustrating as it is, given how dangerous he is, that's going to be more about people giving up on Biden than swearing allegiance to the MAGA cult.

Cheers for that. Made interesting reading.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

I did specify "elected incumbent" for that reason. Johnson is an odd case—he won in 1964 in part because of the overwhelming sentiment following JFK's assassination. But he was still a promoted vice president. Ford wasn't even elected as a vice president—he was promoted following the forced resignation of Agnew and then reached the presidency because of Nixon's forced resignation. Before that, you have to go all the way back to Hoover who had the Great Depression to answer for, and none others in the 20th century. In that time, you have the successful candidacies of McKinley, T. Roosevelt (non-elected incumbent), Wilson, Coolidge (non-elected), FDR (x3!), Truman (non-elected and a surprise), and Eisenhower.

 

Johnson won in 1964, and didn't clear the primaries in 1968, so we can't just ignore him. I already parked Ford. 

 

All the history really means is that incumbents used to be unassailable, but that their failure rate has gone up since - quelle surprise - the turbulent 1960s.

 

 

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

And again, Carter had the October Surprise, GWHB had Ross Perot, and Trump was Trump.

 

Everyone who loses does so for some reason, in fairness, and not just incumbents.  Humphrey had Wallace in 1968, and we'll never know how the history of the next 12-16 years might have played out if he'd squeezed a couple of hundred hundred votes in about 3 states and finished ahead of Nixon.  Mondale and Dukakis were Mondale and Dukakis (sorry, but you know what I mean).  I watched the 1996 campaign and never believed that Dole could actually be a President, and I could scarcely believe it when Romney stayed competitive for as long as he did.

 

 

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

It's a broken system and I hate that it works this way, but I'm expecting the Democrats to absolutely blanket the October airwaves with footage from J6 and stories of raped kids having to flee their states to get abortions. It's a sick form of politics and it needs reform but until then it's how you win.

 

I'd say that's partly because it's a first past the post system, and partly because there are only two realistic options.  The UK sometimes shows signs of the same problem, but there's still a bit of room for alternatives to the UK's political "OF".

 

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

As for whether it's good that people are turnout out in order to try to stop a fascist repeal of American Democracy . . . I can't really say that's a good thing? People voting out of terror isn't healthy in any sense.

 

I get what you're saying, but I guess it'd be worse if they didn't.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Everyone who loses does so for some reason, in fairness, and not just incumbents.  Humphrey had Wallace in 1968, and we'll never know how the history of the next 12-16 years might have played out if he'd squeezed a couple of hundred hundred votes in about 3 states and finished ahead of Nixon.  Mondale and Dukakis were Mondale and Dukakis (sorry, but you know what I mean).  I watched the 1996 campaign and never believed that Dole could actually be a President, and I could scarcely believe it when Romney stayed competitive for as long as he did.

 

I know what you mean. Those were my formative years and I deeply internalized that Democrats could never actually win the White House because our party was boring and stupid. Despite all the polling showing him ahead I was still genuinely shocked when Clinton actually won in 1992 and kind of stunned it happened again in 96, because that just wasn't supposed to happen, right?

 

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd say that's partly because it's a first past the post system, and partly because there are only two realistic options.  The UK sometimes shows signs of the same problem, but there's still a bit of room for alternatives to the UK's political "OF".

 

I get what you're saying, but I guess it'd be worse if they didn't.

 

 

Absolutely FPtP system is a problem, as is gerrymandering, the ongoing and growing efforts at voter suppression, the electoral college, the way the US Senate is allocated and run . . .

 

We need voting reform badly but it's not happening any time soon unfortunately.

 

Apropos of this whole discussion, here's Josh Marshall on the polls recently and how turnout might affect the election. He's no oracle but I trust his read as much as anyone on stuff like this.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-poll-obsessive-gives-you-a-calm-and-sober-read/sharetoken/iF1tEJQNnnSh

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Those were my formative years and I deeply internalized that Democrats could never actually win the White House because our party was boring and stupid.

 

Oddly enough, it was kinda the other way round for me.  I thought the Democrats were ungovernable and chaotic, or often seemed that way. I wasn't old enough to experience 1968 first hand, but I read a lot about it in my teens and twenties, and of course it was probably the most formative (and the most conflictual) Convention and nomination process in the history of the Democratic Party.  Cue the party reforms, and the 1972 campaign, probably the first modern-style primary campaign, which was dramatic and riven with conflict, and where three main candidates were almost tied in terms of popular support (though not delegate count).  In 1976, there was some semblance of party unity, but all the same the Presidential nominee (Carter) couldn't manage to secure 40% of the popular vote in the primaries.  Then in 1980 we had Edward Kennedy making a serious dent in Carter's candidacy, and only withdrawing from the Democratic nomination race at the last moment (see the pic below).  Although the primary races were gradually less conflictual in '84 and '88, you still saw nominees being sniped at by their party colleagues (to the left and the right of them), which only served to undermine Mondale and then Dukakis when the general election came around.  So throughout that time the Democrats really did seem the opposite of boring and stupid - though not necessarily in a good way.   

 

 

 

 

[FWJ]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Johnson won in 1964, and didn't clear the primaries in 1968, so we can't just ignore him. I already parked Ford. 

 

All the history really means is that incumbents used to be unassailable, but that their failure rate has gone up since - quelle surprise - the turbulent 1960s.

 

 

 

Everyone who loses does so for some reason, in fairness, and not just incumbents.  Humphrey had Wallace in 1968, and we'll never know how the history of the next 12-16 years might have played out if he'd squeezed a couple of hundred hundred votes in about 3 states and finished ahead of Nixon.  Mondale and Dukakis were Mondale and Dukakis (sorry, but you know what I mean).  I watched the 1996 campaign and never believed that Dole could actually be a President, and I could scarcely believe it when Romney stayed competitive for as long as he did.

 

 

 

I'd say that's partly because it's a first past the post system, and partly because there are only two realistic options.  The UK sometimes shows signs of the same problem, but there's still a bit of room for alternatives to the UK's political "OF".

 

 

I get what you're saying, but I guess it'd be worse if they didn't.

 

There was an interesting thing on the radio (part of a series about “what ifs”) about 5 year-old Elian Gonzales who, in 1999, was rescued off the coast of Florida from a wreck that had killed his mother - they were fleeing Cuba.

After assurances he could stay with family in Florida he was in the end returned.  This led to much bad feeling in the expat Cuban diaspora in the state - which went on to be very narrowly taken by GWB in 2000 and winning him, and not Al Gore, the presidency.

 

(It’s on BBC Sounds “The Political Butterfly Effect”)

 

Edited April 24 by FWJ

[Ulysses]

38 minutes ago, FWJ said:

There was an interesting thing on the radio (part of a series about “what ifs”) about 5 year-old Elian Gonzales who, in 1999, was rescued off the coast of Florida from a wreck that had killed his mother - they were fleeing Cuba.

After assurances he could stay with family in Florida he was in the end returned.  This led to much bad feeling in the expat Cuban diaspora in the state - which went on to be very narrowly taken by GWB in 2000 and winning him, and not Al Gore, the presidency.

 

(It’s on BBC Sounds “The Political Butterfly Effect”)

 

 

It's remarkable how narrow the margins can sometimes be between winning and losing, in politics as well as in sport.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, FWJ said:

There was an interesting thing on the radio (part of a series about “what ifs”) about 5 year-old Elian Gonzales who, in 1999, was rescued off the coast of Florida from a wreck that had killed his mother - they were fleeing Cuba.

After assurances he could stay with family in Florida he was in the end returned.  This led to much bad feeling in the expat Cuban diaspora in the state - which went on to be very narrowly taken by GWB in 2000 and winning him, and not Al Gore, the presidency.

 

(It’s on BBC Sounds “The Political Butterfly Effect”)

 

About a dozen things swirled around the Florida election that year. It was the Florida election, oddly, which might have tipped the Israel/Palestine situation from cautious peace process to slow and managed aggression.

 

Florida is home to the second largest population of US Jewry (the first being NY of course) and the conflict, and political positions on it, were closely watched. Clinton and Gore, to their credit, put a big emphasis on the US being a "neutral voice for peace," trying to be an impartial broker. In a debate that year, Bush attacked Gore and Clinton for this stance, saying that the US should be unambiguously standing with Israel. Because of the importance of Florida, Gore immediately mimicked him and backed off the "neutral voice" stance.

 

Now the conflict was on a knife-edge at that point, but also US politics were extremely closely watched by both sides in the region. It was around the time of that debate that the Second Intifada emerged, which led almost directly to the election of Ariel Sharon and his disengagement strategy along with the construction of the security fence. Was it Bush's cynical play for Florida votes that did it? I dunno but it sure didn't help.

 

Add to that Ralph Nader, Broward County, the hanging chads, the "Brooks Brothers riot . . . " a few thousand votes, and maybe President Gore doesn't dismantle the counterterrorism unit in early 2001. Maybe they stop 9/11. Or if they don't, President Gore almost certainly doesn't invade Iraq, a war he was against far earlier than most US politicians (including, notably, the current President). Maybe we don't normalize war crimes, maybe we actually act on climate change in the aughts. . .

 

That way lies madness...

[Mikey1874]

Just in time 

 

 

[Ulysses]

14 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Just in time 

 

 

 

 

It's another Trump scam.

 

But if the "$1.3 billion" is in DJT paper, how much is it actually worth?

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

That way lies madness...

 

You're a Hearts supporter and posting on JKB.  What difference would a little more madness make? 

 

[Mikey1874]

More pardons needed

 

 

[Mysterion]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

It's another Trump scam.

 

But if the "$1.3 billion" is in DJT paper, how much is it actually worth?

 

Plenty of time for shorting to continue, would it be a surprise if the 1.3billion is worth virtually nothing by the time the lock up period ends ?

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

---PAUSE----

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

You're a Hearts supporter and posting on JKB.  What difference would a little more madness make? 

 

 

It wasn't a warning, it was an offer to give directions to my current location!

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Reading a live blog of the trial, the one thing that comes across more than anything is how much of a total cheapskate Trump is. Even while Pecker was covering his ass by buying up stories, Trump kept trying to avoid paying him back for the expenses. And Pecker knows this—Cohen says, "don't worry, the boss will cover it" and Pecker replies, "when we went out to lunch, I always paid."

[Gizmo]

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

48 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 

Yeah, the conservative judges are going to split the baby. They can't approve total Presidential immunity (because then I guess Joe Biden could just walk over to the SCOTUS and shoot a couple of them and it'd all be good) but they're going to do a procedural dance that punts it forward on the calendar.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

538 finally started up its poll average. Josh Marshall dunks on RCP's average for the same reasons I don't like it but notes, at the moment, the two are basically in exactly the same place. (the tiniest of Trump leads nationally)

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/our-long-national-rcp-nightmare-is-over/sharetoken/5JZFnvoDLvzA

[Ulysses]

18 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

538 finally started up its poll average. Josh Marshall dunks on RCP's average for the same reasons I don't like it but notes, at the moment, the two are basically in exactly the same place. (the tiniest of Trump leads nationally)

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/our-long-national-rcp-nightmare-is-over/sharetoken/5JZFnvoDLvzA

 

I read the piece.  Eek, one of the problems with having an interest in American politics is finding observations by neutral observers, because try as they might, the non-neutral can't resist letting their "subject" get in the way of their "ivity", as it were.

 

Marshall, to use your expression, dunks on RCP's average for two reasons.  One is its "clumsy methodology".  The other is that it "goes to comical length to add or not add polls to juice their favored candidate."   But he doesn't explain what he means by either.  I don't really care whether he chooses to explain or just rant when it comes to methodology, but the favoured candidate comment is loaded, and sounds a little biased to me. 

 

To me it reads like he's saying they favour the GOP, but that's only my interpretation.  Since his reasons for not liking RCP's polling average are the same as yours, you might have some insight into who he thinks RCP's poll tracking is intended to "juice".

 

It also might be worth your while looking at the figures themselves from 2014 onwards - in other words, the late percentages shown by the trackers and the actual results.  In national poll trackers, you'll probably see more examples of where RCP's tracking overestimated the performance of the Democrats than you will in the case of 538.  There are one or two examples in each case of where those overestimations and underestimations didn't happen, but for the most part they did.  A fella with a simple view and a malicious outlook could accuse RCP of leaning a little to the Democrats, and might even go so far as to accuse 538 of leaning a little to the Republicans.  A biased and partisan Republican or Democrat could accuse both RCP and 538 of "preferring the other guys", because that's the kind of shit that biased and partisan people do.  Another possibility - let's call it the European option - is that the difference between the two is relatively minor in the scheme of things, and that both of them are doing their best in an endeavour which by definition is impossible to get completely right.

 

I did like his comment about complexity being its own reward, and I think he's absolutely right.  Unfortunately, in the hands of the biased complexity becomes just another tool to misinform. 🤷‍♂️

[Ulysses]

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I read the piece.  Eek, one of the problems with having an interest in American politics is finding observations by neutral observers, because try as they might, the non-neutral can't resist letting their "subject" get in the way of their "ivity", as it were.

 

Marshall, to use your expression, dunks on RCP's average for two reasons.  One is its "clumsy methodology".  The other is that it "goes to comical length to add or not add polls to juice their favored candidate."   But he doesn't explain what he means by either.  I don't really care whether he chooses to explain or just rant when it comes to methodology, but the favoured candidate comment is loaded, and sounds a little biased to me. 

 

To me it reads like he's saying they favour the GOP, but that's only my interpretation.  Since his reasons for not liking RCP's polling average are the same as yours, you might have some insight into who he thinks RCP's poll tracking is intended to "juice".

 

It also might be worth your while looking at the figures themselves from 2014 onwards - in other words, the late percentages shown by the trackers and the actual results.  In national poll trackers, you'll probably see more examples of where RCP's tracking overestimated the performance of the Democrats than you will in the case of 538.  There are one or two examples in each case of where those overestimations and underestimations didn't happen, but for the most part they did.  A fella with a simple view and a malicious outlook could accuse RCP of leaning a little to the Democrats, and might even go so far as to accuse 538 of leaning a little to the Republicans.  A biased and partisan Republican or Democrat could accuse both RCP and 538 of "preferring the other guys", because that's the kind of shit that biased and partisan people do.  Another possibility - let's call it the European option - is that the difference between the two is relatively minor in the scheme of things, and that both of them are doing their best in an endeavour which by definition is impossible to get completely right.

 

I did like his comment about complexity being its own reward, and I think he's absolutely right.  Unfortunately, in the hands of the biased complexity becomes just another tool to misinform. 🤷‍♂️

 

RCP is a right wing news site. I don't mean that as a slur—I mean I could but I don't in this instance—they're a site for decidedly right-leaning political news. They do a poll aggregator that's not bad, but yeah, they always seem to rush to include polls that are good for Republicans and come up with a shifting goalpost when including ones that are bad for them. They're not Newsmax or One America Network one of the other super duper Trumpy sites, but they're a staunchly Republican leaning outfit. All you have to do is read their headlines.

 

538 was Nate Silver's baby, and while his politics are a little left of center (though not very left when it comes down to it), when he started it his career was in sports analytics and he made his money either on gambling or on informing people about gambling. I remember long enough ago when he was still holding down his sports analytics day job and doing his political stuff under the handle "Poblano." (no idea why) But his methodology has always been open and his selection criteria explicit. Basically he maintained a database of polls going back decades and graded them over a number of elections on their accuracy and precision, and then builds his polling average and predictive models using the stated margins of error and corrections for "house effects" and then doing a weighted average based on their grades.

 

When he does his predictive models, he basically uses a Monte Carlo random walk and runs like 10k iterations for every prediction and gives a result. By his model, he predicted Trump had a 1/3 chance of winning in 2016, which a lot of people interpreted as a near certain thing when it absolutely wasn't, it was a one in three chance.

 

I don't particularly like Silver personally—after he sold 538 to the New York Times he got increasingly cocky and obnoxious in his commentary. And now he's ****ed off to do something else and left another data weenie in his place, who seems to be less cocksure but possibly even more up the arse of the numbers and less critical of the inherent limits of polling as it's become even harder to get responses. But I like their model better because it's based on the core tenants of probability and the underlying assumptions of polling and they're open about how it works. RCP to my knowledge doesn't release their methodology, but from everything I can tell it's much more of an "old school" average -- just a straight number weighted by time without trying to do the sophisticated error blending that 538 does. Inasmuch as I still follow polls, I far prefer 538 average both for its methods and its transparency.

 

As for Marshall, I mean I'm a Donna Haraway fan and I'll go on about situated objectivity until you're sound asleep if you let me, so of course all of our viewpoints are situated, but he's kind of a hard bitten old curmudgeon at this point, and not particularly prone to wishcasting. He spent all of last year repeatedly telling everyone that despite the fantastical situations everyone was playing out, a Trump primary loss was total wishful thinking and that the Donald was the nominee barring something outrageous happening. That proved spot on. He also spent the beginning of this year telling all of the "let's swap out Biden" crowd that they were spouting silly nonsense and that nothing like that was happening, and that also proved spot on. So not saying he's some kind of oracle but he and the reporters he hires often cut through the bullshit of American politics better than most pundits.

Edited April 26 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Ulysses]

Thanks.  It does answer my question about who Marshall thinks RCP polls are "juicing", and it demonstrates your own views in agreement with that.

 

I don't read RCP's stories, and their headlines, like most headlines, are just patterns on the wallpaper of the Internet.  I just read their polls and their overall poll tracker.  Likewise, I just read the same stuff on 538, and I don't pay attention to their "prediction models" because they're just opinion packaged as science, no different to the Guardian telling me how it thinks the last couple of weeks of the EPL season might play out.

 

I just read the numbers.  Reading those numbers, there's a regular enough occurrence over the last 10 years where RCP's polling at the end of a cycle has either underestimated the margin by which the Republicans went on to win, or else overestimated the margin by which the Democrats did.  That seems to be less the case for 538's poll tracking.  There's a hint of the opposite happening in their case, but I haven't looked at theirs as closely. 

 

If RCP's polls are GOP-leaning, and 538's aren't, then how come RCP's poll tracking has been more likely to overstate the performance of the Democrats? 

 

You said yourself that RCP "always seem to rush to include polls that are good for Republicans and come up with a shifting goalpost when including ones that are bad for them."

 

Yet they still have tended in recent years to underestimate the GOP's performance. That does seem like a pretty ham-fisted way of bigging up their favoured side, surely?  Don't take my word for it, you can look up the polling records yourself, and RCP brazenly put the actual election outcome right beside their final poll tracker so you can compare them in an instant.

 

I'm still waiting to see if I can safely rest my case about the impossibility of getting neutral observations from American observers. I live in hope that it's more possible than I think. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26 by Ulysses

[Lovecraft]

11 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

😆

 

Class

 

 

[Bigsmak]

Not sure if this video will work

 

How would the votes look if it was only gen z to view in the USA 

 

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGe9G3abf/

Edited April 26 by Bigsmak

[Mikey1874]

Fair play to Kristi Noem. 

 

Trump having to decide whether animal welfare is a vote loser.

[Lone Striker]

Its hard to keep up with who's been indicted by which state for being part of Trump's fake elector conspiracy.  This   Meidas Touch video  is on the case -

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 26/04/2024 at 07:06, Ulysses said:

Thanks.  It does answer my question about who Marshall thinks RCP polls are "juicing", and it demonstrates your own views in agreement with that.

 

I don't read RCP's stories, and their headlines, like most headlines, are just patterns on the wallpaper of the Internet.  I just read their polls and their overall poll tracker.  Likewise, I just read the same stuff on 538, and I don't pay attention to their "prediction models" because they're just opinion packaged as science, no different to the Guardian telling me how it thinks the last couple of weeks of the EPL season might play out.

 

I just read the numbers.  Reading those numbers, there's a regular enough occurrence over the last 10 years where RCP's polling at the end of a cycle has either underestimated the margin by which the Republicans went on to win, or else overestimated the margin by which the Democrats did.  That seems to be less the case for 538's poll tracking.  There's a hint of the opposite happening in their case, but I haven't looked at theirs as closely. 

 

If RCP's polls are GOP-leaning, and 538's aren't, then how come RCP's poll tracking has been more likely to overstate the performance of the Democrats? 

 

You said yourself that RCP "always seem to rush to include polls that are good for Republicans and come up with a shifting goalpost when including ones that are bad for them."

 

Yet they still have tended in recent years to underestimate the GOP's performance. That does seem like a pretty ham-fisted way of bigging up their favoured side, surely?  Don't take my word for it, you can look up the polling records yourself, and RCP brazenly put the actual election outcome right beside their final poll tracker so you can compare them in an instant.

 

I'm still waiting to see if I can safely rest my case about the impossibility of getting neutral observations from American observers. I live in hope that it's more possible than I think. 

 

 

 

 

 

Fairly sure RCP underestimated Obama’s performance in 2012. After that an  N of 2 is pretty shit for trend analysis. And again, there’s extremely easy to understand reasons why they skewed that way in both of the past Presidentials, which may or may not be the true reasons but to me they’re persuasive.

 

Sorry you’re not interested in the methods, but to call it opinion in disguise is pretty ignorant. Like data science and statistics are real and while there’s no such thing as perfect objectivity trend analysis and ground truthing are a hell of a lot more sound than observing the results of two very unusual elections and declaring a trend. There’s a lot of new stuff in data science these days but this is old hat. Intro stuff.

[Ulysses]

25 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Fairly sure RCP underestimated Obama’s performance in 2012. After that an  N of 2 is pretty shit for trend analysis. And again, there’s extremely easy to understand reasons why they skewed that way in both of the past Presidentials, which may or may not be the true reasons but to me they’re persuasive.

 

Sorry you’re not interested in the methods, but to call it opinion in disguise is pretty ignorant. Like data science and statistics are real and while there’s no such thing as perfect objectivity trend analysis and ground truthing are a hell of a lot more sound than observing the results of two very unusual elections and declaring a trend. There’s a lot of new stuff in data science these days but this is old hat. Intro stuff.

 

But it's not an n of 2.  It's the late/final tracking polls in each of the Presidential and House elections since 2014.  Each of those was an  average of multiple polls, and each of those polls had sample sizes of 800 upward.  

 

I'm not declaring a trend.  You're declaring a bias on someone else's part, and I'm asking you to explain it.  All you have to do is respond with facts.  The numbers show that RCP's tracking doesn't "juice" the GOP.  You could respond by demonstrating how in fact they do, because surely there's good concrete evidence for that.  You could demonstrate what RCP's methods for doing this are, rather than telling me I've no interest in them. 

 

There's an alternative explanation  of course, and you might want to consider that.  Is it possible that you and Marshall have let your own political biases cloud your assessment of the cause and effect?  As he and you describe it, you don't rate RCP because they're biased.  Have you considered that maybe RCP's polling simply appears biased to you because you've already decided to write it off on the basis that their main page seems to favour the GOP?  I ask because I'm tempted to think that's the case.

 

Put simply, if RCP has been in the habit of using polls to favour one side, there will be detectable signs of that somewhere.  Those signs will not be in your mind's eye, nor in an impassioned but unscientific polemic by Mr Marshall, nor in an unrelated academic paper.  They'll be in RCP's numbers and poll selection.  So just point to them.  

[Ulysses]

[Canscot]

44 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Wonder if he has her grabbed by the pussy?😉

[Ulysses]

29 minutes ago, Canscot said:

Wonder if he has her grabbed by the pussy?😉

 

She looks like she'd shoot him if he did.   

[Hansel]

On 26/04/2024 at 00:11, Ulysses said:

 

😆 🤣 😂 

[milky_26]

18 hours ago, Canscot said:

Wonder if he has her grabbed by the pussy?😉

he is quite clearly relieving himself

[Gizmo]

18 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

She looks like she'd shoot him if he did.   

It would be the best validation of America's gun laws, tbf.

[JFK-1]

Trumps declining powers on full display again as he begged people to protest protest protest, and just one guy called Gary showed up, though I expect Gary protested.

 

Trump, who wouldn't take a minute out of his day for anybody unless there was something in it for him, is embarrassed about this. He said the cops were keeping all the protestors except presumably Gary away. I bet he wouldn't say that under oath.

 

Everybody is simply tired of Trump and I suspect more and more people all the time just wish he would disappear. The entire GOP would be included in that group.

 

Trump fails to attract courthouse protest despite all-caps pleas for support

 

 

 

[Hansel]

10 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Trumps declining powers on full display again as he begged people to protest protest protest, and just one guy called Gary showed up, though I expect Gary protested.

 

Trump, who wouldn't take a minute out of his day for anybody unless there was something in it for him, is embarrassed about this. He said the cops were keeping all the protestors except presumably Gary away. I bet he wouldn't say that under oath.

 

Everybody is simply tired of Trump and I suspect more and more people all the time just wish he would disappear. The entire GOP would be included in that group.

 

Trump fails to attract courthouse protest despite all-caps pleas for support

 

 

 

I don't know why but the fact the lone protester is called Gary makes it more funny 😆 

[Footballfirst]

I note that Trump has been convicted of criminal contempt following last week's hearing. He has been fined and taken down the Truth Social posts in question.

 

He has also been warned that he is likely to be jailed if there is a repeat, so it will be interesting to see what happens in the hearing on his recent contempt later this week.

[Cade]

That wee crybaby will immediately breach the gag order again tonight, probably about 1am after taking a handful of pills.

[Mikey1874]

With the Supreme Court looking like they could delay things, Trump might be unhappy he's not going to be the martyr after all. A few nights in prison could suit him. 

[Canscot]

After calling for his supporter to come down to the court and protest, he did. 
one guy showed up today. His name if anyone is interested is Gary. 
So then Trumpet claims the cops are blocking all his protesters from getting down to the courthouse🙄

Methinks it is not only mainstream people who are tired of his shenanigans. 
It looks increasingly like his supporters are abandoning the sinking ship. 

[JFK-1]

4 hours ago, Hansel said:

I don't know why but the fact the lone protester is called Gary makes it more funny 😆 

 

No mocking Gary, he's a hero and the bravest of them all. Might be the dumbest too but that's beside the point. 😉

[JFK-1]

Glenn Kirschner thinks Trump might be angling to be jailed for a few hours or so, maybe a day. There's a holding cell in the court. Then as has been predicted by others here already he will cry victim and Kirschner thinks may use it as another grift.

 

The line about everything he suffers is for them, he's standing between them and a vengeful government and FBI or something, now I'm going to jail for you all, send me money. In the meantime they're silencing me, I can't get the truth out, so send me money.

 

Donald Trump’s campaign immediately sought to capitalize after the judge in his New York criminal trial ruled him in contempt of court — the latest example of how the former president’s campaign has flipped negative legal developments into a financial boost for his reelection bid.

 

“A Democrat judge JUST HELD ME IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!” read a Tuesday morning email soliciting donations for Trump National Committee, a joint fundraising committee that includes Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee.

 

The email continued: “I was fined $9,000 for 9 gag order violations. THEY WANT TO SILENCE ME! They think they can BLEED ME DRY and SHUT ME UP, but I’ll NEVER stop fighting for YOU.” The email included a link to donate.

 

Full article https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/30/trump-gag-order-fine-fundraising-hush-money-case-00155173

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

 fined $9,000 for 9 gag order violations.

 

9GAG, you say? 

[Maple Leaf]

9 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Glenn Kirschner thinks Trump might be angling to be jailed for a few hours or so, maybe a day. There's a holding cell in the court. Then as has been predicted by others here already he will cry victim and Kirschner thinks may use it as another grift.

 

The line about everything he suffers is for them, he's standing between them and a vengeful government and FBI or something, now I'm going to jail for you all, send me money. In the meantime they're silencing me, I can't get the truth out, so send me money.

 

Donald Trump’s campaign immediately sought to capitalize after the judge in his New York criminal trial ruled him in contempt of court — the latest example of how the former president’s campaign has flipped negative legal developments into a financial boost for his reelection bid.

 

“A Democrat judge JUST HELD ME IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!” read a Tuesday morning email soliciting donations for Trump National Committee, a joint fundraising committee that includes Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee.

 

The email continued: “I was fined $9,000 for 9 gag order violations. THEY WANT TO SILENCE ME! They think they can BLEED ME DRY and SHUT ME UP, but I’ll NEVER stop fighting for YOU.” The email included a link to donate.

 

Full article https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/30/trump-gag-order-fine-fundraising-hush-money-case-00155173

Trump is a grifter, par excellence.

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Trump is a grifter, par excellence.

 

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

12 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Glenn Kirschner thinks Trump might be angling to be jailed for a few hours or so, maybe a day. There's a holding cell in the court. Then as has been predicted by others here already he will cry victim and Kirschner thinks may use it as another grift.

 

The line about everything he suffers is for them, he's standing between them and a vengeful government and FBI or something, now I'm going to jail for you all, send me money. In the meantime they're silencing me, I can't get the truth out, so send me money.

 

Donald Trump’s campaign immediately sought to capitalize after the judge in his New York criminal trial ruled him in contempt of court — the latest example of how the former president’s campaign has flipped negative legal developments into a financial boost for his reelection bid.

 

“A Democrat judge JUST HELD ME IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!” read a Tuesday morning email soliciting donations for Trump National Committee, a joint fundraising committee that includes Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee.

 

The email continued: “I was fined $9,000 for 9 gag order violations. THEY WANT TO SILENCE ME! They think they can BLEED ME DRY and SHUT ME UP, but I’ll NEVER stop fighting for YOU.” The email included a link to donate.

 

Full article https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/30/trump-gag-order-fine-fundraising-hush-money-case-00155173

 

He fund raises off of everything. But the thing is, there's a bottom to that well and the GOP are finding it.

 

https://wapo.st/3UCmLMZ

 

Quote

In the years after Donald Trump lost the presidency to Joe Biden, Trump sent so many emails and text messages asking for money that Republican consultants warned his mailing lists could become useless. The former president’s friends told him that they were being asked for too much, too often, and Trump himself ordered aides at one point to slow the solicitations. Some of his fans, pockets emptied, mailed handwritten letters apologizing for not being able to give more.

Now, as Trump and Biden prepare for a rematch, Trump’s vaunted small-dollar fundraising operation is not bringing in as much money as it once did.

In 2020, Trump and his fundraising committees raised a record $626.6 million from small-dollar donors, 35 percent more than Biden took in from that group.

But last year, Trump raised just $51 million from small donors, way down from the $119 million he registered in 2019 and only 18 percent more than Biden’s total. His small-dollar haul — which includes donations of $200 or less — was not nearly enough to offset Biden’s lead among major donors.

 

And Biden's fundraising lead doesn't even take into account Trump tapping his campaign funds to pay for his legal problems.

 

[JFK-1]

7 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

He fund raises off of everything. But the thing is, there's a bottom to that well and the GOP are finding it.

 

https://wapo.st/3UCmLMZ

 

 

And Biden's fundraising lead doesn't even take into account Trump tapping his campaign funds to pay for his legal problems.

 

 

I had heard how persistent Trumps begging is from one of the critical of Trump TV presenters, I can't remember which one. This guy had signed up for news from the Trump campaign and sure enough he says something like every two hours they're not sending out news, there is no news, simply constantly asking for money.  

This TV presenter said that even if he were a big fan of somebody this type of persistent round the clock pressuring which almost amounts to threatening intimidation would quickly become extremely tedious and even extremely irritating.

 

Quote from that WP article you linked.

 

“The biggest problem in GOP fundraising is that we don’t treat donors well,” said John Hall, a Republican small-dollar fundraiser who runs the digital firm Apex Strategies.

 

“Sending eight emails and texts a day that promise an artificial match, threaten to take away your GOP membership, or call you a traitor if you don’t donate doesn’t build a long-term relationship with donors.”